State v Koroi [2010] FJHC 228; HAC033.2009 (5 July 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No: HAC 033 of 2009

STATE

V

ASAELI KOROI; and ERONI DALITUICAMA

Hearing: 2nd July 2010
Sentence: 5th July 2010

Counsel: Mr. L. Fotofili for State
Ms S. Vaniqi for both Accused (Duty Solicitor)

SENTENCE

[1] The two accused persons have pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery with violence. They are convicted as charged.

[2] The facts are that the first accused was employed as a security officer by the Superfood Supermarket in Nabua. On 7 October 2007 both accused persons met and planned to steal from the Supermarket. On 10 October 2007 they executed their plan. The first accused allowed the second accused and another accomplice to hide inside the building before the Supermarket was closed. The first accused returned home. Another security officer was on duty that night. The two accused persons who hid inside the Supermarket opened the safe and stole $20,425 cash. They also stole liquor and cigarettes to a total value of $724.50.

[3] Meanwhile, four other accomplices were waiting outside the Supermarket. The accomplices threatened the security officer on duty with a cane knife to open the gate. The offenders fled the scene in a getaway vehicle. The first accused received $438 cash as his share while the second accused received $2100 cash as his share.

[4] Upon arrests, both accused persons confessed to the police under caution.

[5] The first accused is 46 years old and is married with six children. He has been a pastor of a church since 2008. His spouse is unemployed. He supports his family.

[6] The second accused is 26 years old. He is separated from his spouse. He works at the Fiji Development Bank as a security officer and earns $100 per week.

[7] Both accused persons have spent previous convictions. I disregard those convictions and treat them as first time offenders. Their guilty pleas, remorse, cooperation with the police and previous good character mitigate the offence.

[8] The stolen amount is substantial. Only a small portion has been recovered. The theft was planned. These are the aggravating factors. The first accused was an employee of the complainant and he breached the trust of his employer by stealing. This last factor applies only to the first accused.

[9] Since there was no physical injury caused to anyone, I pick 4 years as a starting point, and add 1 ½ years for the aggravating factors. I add an additional 6 months to the first accused’s sentence for breach of trust. I reduce the sentence by 3 years for the mitigating factors. The first accused has spent 7 months in custody while awaiting trial. With some downward adjustments for remission I further reduce his sentence by 12 months to reflect the remand period.

[10] I have considered suspending the sentences. I have decided to exercise my discretion not to suspend the sentences because the offences are serious and the offenders need to be deterred.

[11] The first accused is sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months. The second accused is sentenced to 2½ years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years.

Daniel Goundar
JUDGE

At Suva
5th July 2010

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for State
Office of the Legal Aid Commission for both Accused